Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Were the Democrats Who Voted Against Preventing War with Iran?
On Wednesday, the House voted on two amendments to the defense authorization bill that would have restricted the ability of the Bush Administration to launch an attack on Iran.
An amendment introduced by Reps. DeFazio, Paul, Hinchey, and Lee would have explicitly blocked military action against Iran without Congressional authorization. I say "explicitly" because under the Constitution, of course, Congress has the sole power to declare war.
But as the amendment authors have noted, Bush Administration officials have tried to claim that the Bush Administration has the authority to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.
The amendment failed 136-288, with 100 Democrats voting no. The roll call is here.
A narrower amendment offered by Rep. Andrews would have prevented funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran. This amendment also failed, but the vote was much closer: 202-216, with 29 Democrats voting no. The roll call is here.
These amendments, which merely reaffirm the warmaking powers of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution, would have passed if most Democrats voted yes. So who were the Democrats who voted no?
Let's start with the Andrews amendment, on the theory that the narrower amendment gives you a sharper read on who the problem kids are.
Democrats voting no on the Andrews amendment were: Ackerman, Altmire, Barrow, Bean, Berkley, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boyd (FL), Carney, Cramer, Cuellar, Donnelly, Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Klein (FL), Lampson, Mahoney (FL), Marshall, Melancon, Mitchell, Murtha, Rothman, Salazar, Schwartz, Scott (GA), Sherman, Shuler, Space, Tanner.
Murtha?! What's that about? It was Murtha who originally proposed putting a prohibition against an unauthorized attack on Iran in the supplemental. Murtha co-sponsored DeFazio's bill, and a similar one offered by Representative Jones. Why did Murtha vote no?
Democrats voting no on the DeFazio amendment were: Ackerman, Altmire, Andrews, Baca, Barrow, Bean, Berkley, Berman, Bishop (GA), Bordallo, Boren, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS), Brown (Corrine), Cardoza, Carney, Castor, Cohen, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Crowley, Cuellar, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (Lincoln), DeLauro, Dicks, Donnelly, Edwards, Ellsworth, Emanuel, Etheridge, Giffords, Gordon, Harman, Hastings (FL), Herseth Sandlin, Higgins, Hill, Hinojosa, Hodes, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, Kanjorski, Klein (FL), Lampson, Lantos, Larsen (WA), Levin, Lipinski, Lowey, Mahoney (FL), Marshall, Matheson, McCarthy (NY), McIntyre, Meek (FL), Melancon, Miller (NC), Mitchell, Mollohan, Moore (KS), Murphy (Patrick), Murtha, Ortiz, Perlmutter, Pomeroy, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ruppersberger, Salazar, Sanchez (Loretta), Sarbanes, Schiff, Scott (GA), Sestak, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Shuler, Skelton, Smith (WA), Snyder, Space, Spratt, Tanner, Tauscher, Taylor, Towns, Udall (CO), Van Hollen, Walz (MN), Wasserman Schultz, Waxman, Weiner, Wexler, Wilson (OH).
Murtha also voted against the DeFazio amendment. As I noted last week, Barrow, Berkley, Berman, Cooper, Costa, Hoyer, Lipinski, Ruppersberger, Scott, and Udall voted against the McGovern bill to withdraw from Iraq even though they represent districts that voted for Kerry in 2004.
Jefferson is a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus and co-sponsored a bill against attacking Iran offered by Representative Lee. Andrews and Brown (Out of Iraq Caucus) voted against the DeFazio amendment even though they co-sponsored DeFazio's bill. Towns (Out of Iraq Caucus) voted no although he co-sponsored a similar bill offered by Representative Jones. That information is recorded here.
Tauscher has been targeted by Working for Us for not supporting a Democratic agenda, as The Nation has reported. (Cuellar is also mentioned in this article.)
Thank and spank, praise and punish, as they say. MoveOn is running radio ads expressing disappointment with Hoyer and Senator Levin for undermining Democratic efforts to end the Iraq war. Send your Representative a note to let him or her know what you think about their votes.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
19 Comments so far
Show AllGravel sez: "Let the people decide".
It would be easier if someone made a short list of who we shouldn't throw out of government.
Now, tell me to vote Democrat, least of all to work for them. Not in my life time, please.
Remember social-democrats voting to in 1914 all over Europe fund World War?
We are at the same fork of history to finish that deal. Foundations of this Republic are out of the receding murky waters of wishful propaganda, patriotic fervor, and nationalistic jingoism. As usual, receding waters indicate coming of the Big Wave; the deeper receding the bigger the wave.
Tsunami is coming! Tsunami is coming!
The Democratic Party is about as disgusting a party as can be imagined. They are, without a doubt, as massively pro-war as the Republican Party. Sure, there are some Democrats that are strongly anti-war. However, they are pushed aside, marginalized, and laughed at by the majority pro-war Democrats.
You would have to be a 1st Class, USDA Grade A inspected IDIOT to vote Democratic.
If war comes with Iran, and I think it is coming sooner than later, we face a long hard struggle under adverse conditions to organize a majority and build a leadership against the war, which will of course be precipitated by some grand atrocity blamed on Iran. Every Democrat in Congress who stands with us against this war will be precious to us, and the time for winning as many as we can to that commitment is now.
If the war doesn't come it will be because the Bush administration has been so weakened by defections from its Iraq war policy and growing public outrage and skepticism, and from exposure to and opposition to its plans for Iran, that they don't feel they can get away with it.
Bottom line: we can't afford to dismiss the Democrats and stand aloof from this struggle. We need to keep the pressure on, and build the strongest alliance that we can, prepare for the worst but play to win.
The question is whether it would be easier for progressives to take the helm of the Democratic Party (for the first time) and enact IRV voting coupled with open source/recountable/honest voting machinery (also for the first time) -- or whether we stand a better chance of all abandoning that party and voting for the Greens, etc.
Or maybe a bit of both.
I think we need to keep that list of Democrats who basically have no foreign policy distinct of the neocons, and whose domestic policy largely overlaps also. These Dems we need to bring back to their constituents and dangle it out there. Ask them, "Do you want to send your kids to Iran? Want to have the blood of genocide on your hands?"
Congress must NEVER give Bush-Cheney a blank check to invade Iran. I'm really disappointed in Steny Hoyer and the dems who voted no.
John F. Butterfield May 19th, 2007 5:25 pm
"It would be easier if someone made a short list of who we shouldn't throw out of government."
Good idea!
What if they had an election and nobody came ???? Maybe the Dems would listen to that because they are totally ignoring their constituents now. I think we are going to have to let this government implode from the weight of its own corruption and inertia.
The "short list" idea is GREAT!!!
The only way we are going to keep Bush & Co.'s fingers off the Attack Iran button is to distract them. Impeachment proceedings have to start NOW!! Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against Cheney (HR333) in April. WE have to get Polosi to put impeachment BACK ON THE TABLE!! Call your members of Congress now toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and get them to support/co-sponser HR333. Then do it again next week. Again and Again and Again. While you're at it, e-mail Pelosi with the same message at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov over, and over, and OVER again.
P.S. Send the Dem's a message about their sold out candidates in the primaries. Vote Kucinich then, when he isn't nominated, tell the DNC that you can no longer support the party and why. Register as anything but a Dem. and vote for, or write -in, whoever you want come November '08.
War is "Big Money", and the more advanced the technology, the "Bigger the Money". The politicians will never clean things up without the people making the first move. Eliminating the influence of special interests is the only answer.
The only way to succeed at that is to limit the influence of the money given for political campaigns, i.e. if NO ONE, whether individual or corporate entity is allowed to make any more than a $2000.00 contribution either to the candidate or the party (not both) then the politicians will be most likely to follow the wishes of their constituents. Of course, human beings being such clever inventors the constituency will forever need to remain vigilant----but it has never been tried before, and obviously the present system has proved to be a failure except of course to those special interests who have made billions off this latest war much of it tax free.
Yellow Horse
I don't know if I'm right, but I get the distinct feeling that there are right-wingers here that wait for stories that can drive a wedge between us and pounce on them with snide little comments.
I'll break down what's real for you though...
There's a camp that feels that voting Democratic isn't going to help, and there's a camp that believes voting anything OTHER than Democratic isn't going to help. There's a third camp that believe policing the Democratic party, and voting for them if they act 'close enough' in favor of progressive purposes.
To the first group I say: Voting anything other than Democratic is a symbolic gesture worthy of praise, but that's about it. If you want overnight sudden change, you have two choices. 1) choke the commerce off with direct non-violent action i.e 10s of thousands (at least) of people sitting in the middle of main streets, waiting to be dragged off like a sack of grain. Good luck organizing that today, I wish you all the best, and will join in if you can make it feasible. 2) Armed revolution. Wouldn't take as many people to get things rolling, but the consequences are horrendous. I do not recommend this course of action, as the reigns of power will not be given up easily, and if you try to take them by force, well, what they are doing in Iraq would be considered 'quaint' to what they will do to Americans rising up in mass. I would expect BNC warfare to be honest.
To the second group I say: Your solution may seem the most feasible, but in the long run you're being suckered. Look at the LONG list in the main article and see. These people aren't working for you, they're doing just enough to convince you to keep working for THEM. Without you they are nothing, and they would fall. Hold them accountable with your votes, and more importantly with your voice. Scream your rage at being made a fool of (yes, that IS what they think of you as) and spend your donation dollars wisely. All the work you do for YOUR party is just work and resources put into A party, if that party doesn't represent YOU, after all, winning the war for the wrong side isn't really winning at all.
To the third group I say: You are probably on the path of least resistance to positive change, though that doesn't make it easy. You've got your work cut out for you, and are going to find interests that are entrenched so deeply that it will be hard to oppose them. You're going to need to organize, and MoveOn isn't going to work. Maybe a website that ranks just how important any given piece of legislation is to the progressive cause, and a database of votes, to give you a nice accurate picture. Said website probably already exists, but it needs to be found, to be advertised, to have it's name screamed on every forum you can find.
That's long enough. I've got to figure out how not to be so long winded. :-)
Well, thanks for letting me rant yet again.
Before anyone sighs and throws up their hands because there's nothing an individual can do to prevent an impending war with Iran, maybe they need to think iN a bit more detailed fashion.
There are things individuals can do. How about the good old "starving a cold" strategy? As in, convince, cajole, and even forbid your sons & daughters to join the military, any kind of military.
War with Iran won't be a small-time affair, and they'll need every warm body they can get no matter how new. Maybe we can't "vote with our feet" on this one, but we sure as heck can "vote with our kids". If you're afraid your kid might die in Iran, then DON'T-LET-THEM-GO-THERE(!)
What did I tell you before? The two parties are two-faced, meaning, they are two sides of the same coin. They vote for war with Iran because that's what Israel and the lobby group AIPAC want. You would've done the same if you were elected by financial contributions from AIPAC.
Direct, small scale action is the only thing that will work. It may seem a lonely path but as we make individual decisions that make sense we will by default connect with other truth seekers.
I am ready to stop voting because as the bumper-sticker says: "Don't Vote -- It Only Encourages Them". I really don't want to encourage "them" which is the bought and paid-for "Leaders" of all stripes.
The masses are sleeping and will not wake up. All the fight and ability to perceive is gone from most people through relentless brainwashing and enforced social conformity.
The Hippies had it right (basically). Return to the land if you can find any and drop out of the madness.
"It would be easier if someone made a short list of who we shouldn't throw out of government."
Boy, that WOULD be a short list! :)
Revolution is an idea. It is up to us to spread that idea. We need to stop blaming everyone including Mr. Nader, young people, people with IPods, & people who watch American Idol. The world has changed, revolution might come in the streets but before that can happen it must come in the minds of the American people who have been successfully brainwashed. Just ask people about the Vietnam war and they'll say isn't it a shame the way the soldier's were treated. They actually think activists spit on the returning soldiers. It never happened but a lot of people swear that it did. That's where the battle is.
When the Vietnam demonstrations were happing it was in the newspapers and on TV. That doesn't happen today. To find out what is happening you have to actively seek it out. A lot of people are working more than one job to survive right now, so it is up to those of us who are able. I love the idea of a People's Union and building a community of activists. All revolutions start small. We can't wait for brainwashed overburden Americans to join us. I believe there are a lot of people who want change and are working towards that change in one way or another. Every effort supports the flow of ideas and it is the idea of revolution that will get us there. Change will come when we change our minds about what is possible.
Why won't one of the pundits simply ask anyone who supports war with Iran if they understand we will need to draft soldiers, to start with, & if they expect China and Russia to stay on the sidelines?
Lets see what happens if for a few months a majority of the people stops purchasing new products for a period of time. To begin with, everyone can survive with his/her existing clothing, car, tv, computer etc. without feeling hardship for a while. Furthermore, not buying from McDonald's Burger King's etc. and buying food just enough to live fairly comfortably—in other words, forgeting about Coke, Pepsi and reducing daily consumption of meat and dairy products, produce etc.—will force corporate America to think twice about supporting officials whom people do not support. Just imagine what empty Walmarts', Maycys', Good Guys', auto dealers etc. would do to big businesses. Would they start laying off workers? They might! But that makes the situation even worse for them. So they begin to yell and scream at the military industries, warmongers—such as AIPAC, AEI—to step aside. Do you think the Israelis would still be controlling the US policies? I doubt it very much!
So I believe the peace loving American progressives should start mobilizing the people to take this action soon, before the first body bag arrives from Tehran.